November 11, 2016

Full steam ahead, against divided Dems

We already took over the Republican wing of the Establishment during the primaries, and now that Trump has the bully pulpit and millions of pumped up supporters who can turn out in force when needed, the remaining elected GOP Congressmen will either honor the will of the people or get publicly bullycided from both ends (Pres and voters).

After knocking down the Clinton column, the rest of the Democrat wing of the Establishment is coming crashing down, too. Their credibility and influence has been vaporized, the Obamas never did have an extensive network of cronies to support them, and there is nobody else to take their place. Pocahontas? Biden? They're less hated by the public, but they have no crony network to back them up, and no base to mobilize against us. The Democrat party has been swiftly and utterly decapitated.

Now, if there were a cohesive counter-Establishment movement among Dems, they could take over the party as the Trump movement has. But the entire primary season has revealed them to be more at civil war with each other, and the spectacular failure of their side in all three branches of the federal government has only made them turn more angrily on each other in the blame game.

For a laugh I tuned into CNN for a few minutes last night, and Michael Moore was explaining to Don Lemon what was wrong with the Clintons and why Bernie would have been better. Once he was done, Lemon immediately gets in a passive-aggressive dig that Bernie damaged Hillary during the primaries, and that was a major source of her downfall in the general. They can't even present a united front against Trump on the Clinton News Network!

In fact, Moore wrote a list of five key things the libs and progs must start doing in order to obstruct Trump and win back the government. And one of those five is a tirade against the DNC for rigging the primary against Bernie, using superdelegates to overwhelm the popular vote, and so on. He can't even list five items on the agenda without making one of them another volley in the Democrat civil war!

The leadership is decapitated, the pundits and influencers are turning on one another -- what about the actual voters? As of now, the Democrats officially have no demographic base to turn out -- at the ballot box, at protests, at the media audience, at anything.

Blacks stayed home on Election Day in record numbers, feeling that the leaders have taken them for granted, abandoned them, and only used them to get elected. Both Bernie and Trump spread that message, and the leaders did nothing to prove the charges false. Blacks are not going to switch over to the Trump side en masse, but neither are they an energized base for the Democrats.

So, the identity politics wing of the party has a base, but it is unwilling to act.

The other major numbers that the Dems used to be able to rely on came from the white working class and white ethnics, who have defected in droves to Trump. How in the hell did they lose the Italians of Staten Island, the Poles of Wilkes-Barre, and the diverse ethnics of Macomb County? How in the hell does Rhode Island go from the 4th bluest state to the 11th?

They realized that the Democrat leaders no longer care about the blue-collar Ellis Island enclaves anymore, and that there's no room for a Bobby Kennedy in the multi-racial 21st century. If the party doesn't want to work on class issues, and only anti-white identity politics or fruity environmentalism, then vaffanculo, capisci?

So, the Bernie and O'Malley progressives have lost their base to Trump.

Therefore, not only is there no broad demographic base to mobilize, the various blocs within the old base are beginning to feel and perhaps soon even act hostile toward each other, as Balkanization picks up pace.

Gentlemen, the Democrats have absolutely zero cohesion at any level of power -- party leadership, movement managers and media professionals, or demographic bases. They are thoroughly divided and mutually antagonistic, and can now be easily conquered. It's time to put the pedal to the metal and take our hands off the wheel to let them know we're not going to swerve.

38 comments:

They will just drive all the SWPLs into the populist camp over time if they take that route. Looked up this Ellison guy briefly and he's a mess. An incoherent Muslim activist who seems to spend as much time on pet causes like South Sudan as on doing his actual job.Only an ultra establishment shill like Schumer could think of putting forward someone like this. In the spirit of true cuckery, putting guys like Ellison in charge will end with him getting purged out of his own party.One of the lessons of 2016 for dems is they don't have their minorities on a leash like they thought they did. They still haven't learned.

Push Peoria's buttons. They rationalized pushing unpretentious whites to the back of the queue by beating the America is no longer a white country meme to death. Since strivers concentrate in areas with lots of immigrants (duh, immigrants are strivers by definition thus they end up in the same place as domestic strivers) it became easier for the "intellectual" class to, at best, ignore white people when they weren't openly dissing their concerns. I remember a GOP (!) politician dismissing amnesty skeptics as "rednecks" to a reporter circa the 2nd Bush term.

Obama, cultural Marxist in chief, has appointed tons of blacks, seemingly to rub salt in the wounds of whites. A lot of the legacy Boomer white Dems still left in the party's structure must be feeling a frost by now.

WRT Obama, he's a slippery dude who has had Manchurian candidate written all over him from the start. - Closeted- mysterious past, family with Deep State connections- hyper ambitious lesbian/asexual Boomer beard- cosmopolitan upbringing- he let others define and market him- CHICAGO! (and he didn't even grow up there, unlike Hillary)

Obama is a puppet that was carefully built and maintained. He never really had any clout. When he's done he'll have passed his prime usefulness and he'll probably end up spending his post president time being a passive-aggressive cult Marxist fag.

As long as we're talking about obscured (before Trump's election) northeastern white ethnics, per Wiki Maine has the highest amount of French ancestry. Per Stephen King and surname research, Maine has typically been a pretty prole-ish place. The French elite didn't deign to ever leave France for good, so the ones who ended up in the New World have always been fairly downscale.

And guess what? Trump nearly won Maine.

A lot of the enmity at Trump has existed for quite some time, but it's gotten worse because he's managed to steer the entire country towards his tastes. The Jews and WASP elite (remember, virtually all US presidents have elite English ancestry) detest, above all else, "gaudy" and prole-ish taste. Reagan was the best president we had after November 1963, but Reagan appealed to lower class whites so that makes Reagan Hitler-lite. Or something. One must be sufficiently pedigreed in elite Northeastern culture to have any say in what America's direction should be. How dare he get in the way of the Bushes.

We see the cultural elite get so bent out of shape about "civility", and "discourse", and decorum. We can't ever let the proles feel welcome in the country club.

The Anglo-Jew axis of programming for the enlightened, heralded by John Liebovitz I mean Stewart, reached it's peak with the importing of Canadian and English ringers into the "American" late night "comedy" circuit because I guess even lame-ass TV propaganda is a job that Americans just won't do anymore.

BTW, something Sailer has brought up is that Hollywood ought to feel mighty embarrassed that the prole whites they love to put down actually have better taste than brown, black, and yellow people. We have this strange dissonance now, in which awful pop culture makes tons of money among blacks and Mestizos, and in the third world. The "nuanced" and "cerebral" stuff favored by Jews and Wasp elites is no longer as viable since product has to be made for an audience that has fewer and fewer prole whites.

At many a post 1990 L.A. movie screening, you'd get two kinds of audiences: the first has lots of lower class non-whites so everything has to be loud, crude, simplistic, and bland. No room for actors to stretch, no memorable idiosyncrasies, and no careful craftsmanship. The second audience is striving cultural elites, who love to make fun of cultural conservatism, The South, heavy metal, hunting, 80's action movies, baseball caps etc. They're stuck in an 80's time warp in which white proles had a large say in pop culture. The increasingly dull and obnoxious black and brown targeted culture of the last 20 years is blamed on corporate greed, rather than the audience itself.

But as pointed out here, the Trump movement's takeover of these issues has driven away many / most? of the libs and progs who had claimed them before. They want to maintain an oppositional persona, rather than achieve certain outcomes on certain issues.

"WRT Obama, he's a slippery dude who has had Manchurian candidate written all over him from the start."

Chuck Johnson is digging into Obama's background as either a non-natural-born citizen, someone who forged their birth certificate, or something else that would nullify his presidency and allow us to replace his two Supreme Court appointments.

I wrote a post on that way back in the primaries, based on Trump's history with the issue and the fact that Sheriff Joe was still giving interviews on CNN about the topic as late as summer 2015. Trump must've told him to keep it hush-hush until he became Pres, otherwise it would be a distraction and nothing could be done anyway with Obama still in the White House.

But before too long, Got News is going to blow the lid off of that secret.

The sheriff needs to be appointed by Trump for some task or position (border wall czar?), if for no other reason than to rub salt in the hemorrhaging shotgun blast wound that Trump's armies have inflicted.

I see that now the cucks are all trying to sidle up to Trump and insinuate their way into his administration, but they're in for a rude awakening for two reasons: 1) Trump isn't beholden to them at all. They fought him every step of the way, and he's a man who values loyalty and remembers treachery. 2) They have nothing he needs. They claim that "he needs our foreign policy expertise" or whatever, but his whole campaign shtick was that our dealmakers (i.e. them) are idiots and need to be replaced wholesale. He also knows the people who elected him want to see him clean house, not re-up with the same people who were just pimping TPP and war with Syria.

Looking forward to some very high energy appointments in the next couple weeks. There still plenty of time for pleasant surprises in the Current Year!

Trump will need to prevent them from constantly trying to sabotage him in congress and to get behind him.He only has a two vote lead in senate and needs enough votes to take down Ryan as speaker of the house.Trump will have to make through his administration's baby steps before he can start to more aggressively dispense with them.

seeing the ongoing freak out is unreal. i've had family and friends (most were trump or at least neutral...) crying. seen riots, shootings and talk of mass suicides on the news. and even more obvious anti-white racism everywhere. i don't want to come off as a concern troll given how much i dreaded the thought of clinton dragging the us into another war or who knows what. but all this is very exhausting to deal with. and very alarming to look at. this is not how normal, sane adults behave.

- Where you get votes is more important than how many you get. Trump lost a fair amount of highly educated white voters, esp. out West where his message of powering the factories and foundries back up is not relevant. But he "won" back disgruntled prole whites in the Midwest and much of the Northeast thereby putting Dem territory back into the GOP camp.

- We're in an era of intense partisanship. 1984 was the last high point of non-partisan voting (Christ, Massachusetts voted for Reagan!). If Trump had run against Clinton in the less partisan mood of 30-70 years ago, hed've won at least 6-7 more states. But in 2016, you just aren't going to get that many staunch Dems to vote for the GOP.

- The media, the elite politicians, and the leftist zealots so stigmatized Trump support that it scared off a fair amount of culturally liberal types (irrespective of income or education) and muh principles conservative people who went 3rd party. He got obliterated in many urban areas, not just the highly black ones (duh) but particularly ones with a lot of immigrants, transplants, and hipsters. Reagan was viewed with some suspicion and even condescension in the 1980 election, but he never had aggression and hate thrown at him.

Long story short, Trump did the best a GOP candidate probably could do under the circumstances. A "generic" GOP candidate, whose chances were fawned over endlessly by cucks, probably loses more of the Midwest, possibly fails to motivate enough Florida proles and retirees to put Florida over, and doesn't inspire followers to drive thousands of Amish to the PA polls.

Even better for what this means for the media -- trustbusting, CNN and MSNBC will be just two out of dozens of co-equal news channels and perhaps (likely) one of the fresh upstart competitors will drive them out of business.

None of their talentless talent will find jobs anywhere else in the media. Maybe Anderson Cooper becomes a tech columnist at the Advocate, reviewing the buttsex hookup app du jour.

None will have any real access, with the White House press pool disbanded.

Bans on Twitter accounts with major followings will be subject to federal approval, through Peter Thiel, so that they will not be arbitrary, vindictive, or ideological.

In general, Trump is turning governance into a utilitarian affair -- achieve outcome A on policy B -- and not on the LARP-y theatrical spectacle is had become. It's the spectacle that generates buzz, commentary, and ratings on the news channels. No theater, no jobs for theater reviewers.

Only channels and websites that tell us what policies are being pursued, for what reasons, etc., will thrive. Not ones whose feast days are Beer Summit and the like.

Dems get 1/3 of their votes from blacks and Latinos. If they really believe in affirmative action, ALL Dem front groups such as Slate, Vox, Bezos Post, humanities departments, liberal think tanks etc should be OVER 1/3 black and Latino.

Slate for example is just 7% black and Latino (and its sole Latino employee doesn't even have a writing position). http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/slate_fare/2016/11/how_slate_staffers_are_voting.html

But dweeby virtue-signaling whites know that hiring that many blacks and Latinos would force them to confront inconvenient truths. So they virtue-signal ever louder, hoping it will be somebody else who has to integrate.

Let's stir up all kinds of minority awareness and resentment against all segregated hipster prog enclaves.

Another self-defeating plan from the Michael Moore wing is to primary the corporatist Dems with prog Dems, so that the winner can go on to fight, obstruct, and defeat Trump.

The contradiction is wanting an adversarial stance toward the other party -- the point is simply for Team Us to defeat Team Them.

OK, then it won't be the progs -- they share too much common ground with Trump. It would have to be identity politics, corporate globalism, and neo-con warhawks. That's who the nemesis is in an apocalyptic battle between Trump and the Dems.

We just saw how that approach worked out, but if the goal is to do battle against the other team, that's who will continue to represent Team Dem.

The only way for the progs to win primaries is for them to take an accommodating stance toward the other team. Since the other team controls the entire government and has the only energized demographic base, we aren't in a position to make demands, so let's just work as hard as we can on the common ground topics like trade, war, corruption, trustbusting, leaving entitlements, infrastructure, re-industrialization, etc.

The Dem primaries would be why I am the best candidate to work with the other side on the major issues, while still trying to push for environmentalism, etc. at a secondary level and perhaps at least get some bread crumbs there after cooperating on the major issues.

Clearly the partisan warfare mindset is still the prevailing one, so whether Michael Moore understands it or not, his desire to fight Trump uber alles means that the progs will never have any place in the Dem party.

The progs have had common ground with Trump all along on economic issues but their emotional reactions have prevented them from thinking clearly. It will take time before they can start working across the aisle without being crucified. Until then, Trump has to make the most of his built-in republican majority.

First, for screwing up how the DNC was run, replacing Howard Dean with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in order to get dat fat Jewish donor cash from Broward County. (Yes he names the Jew, and is Jewish himself... maybe half, "Chariton" sounds Greek.)

Second, for betraying his initial anti-Wall Street rhetoric by having Citibank appoint his cabinet, and championing a Heritage / GOP healthcare plan, Obamacare.

And third, appearing to give the go-ahead on the Dakota Access Pipeline -- the idee fixe du jour of the prog Left.

It's bad enough for them that Obama won't be able to organize anything once out of office. If now even the progs are starting to curse his legacy, Trump has free rein to go after Obama's legacy when it's over.

And when he says, "Gee folks, I used to believe that Obama was born in this country, but new evidence has persuaded me otherwise," the progs won't be able to slam him since they've already disavowed Obama, more or less.

I think it is too early to tell what direction the DNC will go down. Right now they are just knee jerk reacting as a decade's worth of hubris came crashing down on them on Tuesday. It will probably take them a good few months to figure out just what their strategy is for 2020. I think it's all a waste for them anyway.

If the Democrats decide to go down the progressive route, non-white turnout will continue to be low. You could put someone like Tulsi Gabbard in the role to lead this wing. If she were to run in 2020, she would be 39 which would make her the youngest candidate. Also she is Asian, which is the wrong type of minority. Are there any strong black or latino candidates who would make a run with this group of people? If not, the turnout for minorities will continue to bottom out and Trump wins with a greater margin in 2020.

If the Democrats decide to go down the identity politics route, they risk losing the remaining independent and moderate whites who don't hate being white and don't think they should be hated for being white either. SWPLs will continue to self flagellate but they are a small minority of Democrat-voting white people. I'd say there's upwards of 30 million Democrat voting whites who could be alienated if they go this direction. It would be insane to assume that all 30 million would go in 2020 but if Trump could peel off a few million whites, that would counter any minority gains. So in this case, they would lose again in 2020.

The other option is banking on a unifier who can bring both groups together. Right now the Democrats don't have anyone like that. Hillary tried to be this person and didn't make it. Obama was this guy but that's because there were a lot of factors for him to enjoy that no longer exist currently. Cory Booker is not this guy. Julian Castro or Antonio Villaraigosa are not these guys. I don't even think there is someone white who could fill the role either. So they are totally screwed with this option.

I agree, the clear and obvious solution is to continue driving a wedge into the split. They need to sit out the next 8-16 years while the country undoes decades worth of damage due to neoconservatism, identity politics, etc. Our work is just getting started.

Agnostic, could you please post a recommended reading list of works in sociology, polisci, history, etc. that would helpful in understanding US politics? The insights I have gained from reading your blog have been remarkable.

I think you are mistaken in the opinion that the black wing of the democrats would remain democrat regardless of what happens elsewhere. This may be the case of black boomers who constantly claim that the GOP would start rounding up citizen minorities like what happened in 1930s Germany. Note that the current leftist protesters are mainly white college students with only token minorities participating. What I'm saying is that younger minorities (at least in the black and citizen Latino communities) who haven't absorbed the boomer propaganda are very much amenable to a realignment led by a populist like trump.

A delusion I neglected earlier -- "Hillary won the popular vote," so it's really no biggie that she got blown out in the EC. Trump doesn't "really" have a mandate. Door is wide open to Dem revolt in near term.

Republicans don't bother showing up in CA, NY, IL, and MA -- it's just Dem voters making a regular show of force and running victory laps.

Trump didn't care about motivating his voters to show up in states where their efforts would be totally wasted. Hence the deficit in popular vote there, which is all that the national popular vote gap boils down to.

But because the Dems are rabid partisan warriors, they are looking for any little thing to spin as a win, in order to not feel like total losers. So they're hanging onto this "popular vote" thing rather than seeing it for what it is.

Clinging to this delusion ensures that they'll not only lose next time, but even worse than before because they think there's a national mandate for what Hillary stood for -- anti-white anti-male identity politics, corporate globalism, etc.

I am worried that Democrats will make a strong effort to end the electoral college. Yet with Republicans controlling everything the EC should be safe. Our founding fathers were geniuses to come up with such a system.

California was by far the worst state because they've gone from primary to general for state offices to election and run-off for state offices.

If you're a Republican why even bother to show up? Your candidate isn't in the general election. It goes completely contrary to the idea of letting the parties chose their candidates and the people choosing between parties. You know that your vote for President doesn't count so you have no reason to.

The hypocrisy is something else. The Dems were more than happy to live with the electoral college, which in the post 1988 era got them: - Clear victories in 1992,1996, 2008, 2012- A disputed loss in 2000- Two undisputed losses in 2004 (which was close) and 2016 (the biggest electoral loss for the Dems since 1988)

To give them a sports record, that's 4-2-1

I see that Wiki has locked their electoral college article due to petulant partisans.

Out of all the developments to emerge in this election, I didn't foresee validation for the electoral college. But that's exactly what happened. The West coast is such a basketcase that it's proving just why we can't let a particular region or state monopolize election power.

Keep in mind that whites in the Eastern Midwest, the Mid-Atlantic, and New England haven't been this receptive to the GOP president since the 80's. If we had similar racial demos to the 80's, Trump would've easily won the popular vote and several more Eastern states. Meanwhile, out on the left coast, even the least pretentious state, Oregon, saw whites vote against Trump. Yuck.

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/minnesota/president

MN whites broke for Trump, but 14% of independents and a fair amount of Reps. going 3rd party is what cost him the state (only about 3% of Dems went 3rd party). I'm almost shocked that white women favored Trump, albeit by just 1%. That's still progress.

The Dems are earnestly stunned and enraged because their entitlement's been violated. They thought that a coalition of liberal Northeastern whites, Mid-Atlantic and Rust-belt blacks, and Western Mexicans/white flakes would never be disrupted by a populist candidate.

The rage at the EC is all the more bizarre given just how narrow Trump's victories in PA, FL, and MI were. Granted, the elimination of E-voting and enforcing strict ID measures in urban areas would've given Trump better numbers, but arguing fraud isn't going to persuade Dems since it doesn't exist as far as the Dem partisans are concerned.

BTW, even my dad was pushing the popular vote meme. I told him that California is so liberal, and has so many non-founding stock Americans and flakes, that it's effectively not part of America anymore. So as far as we should be concerned, the state's votes don't count. Thus, Trump did indeed win the popular vote among Real Americans. Not so much with people like the Washington mall shooter, who voted in several elections illegally before going beserk.

"I'm almost shocked that white women favored Trump, albeit by just 1%."

Race trumps gender because race / ethnicity is a social-cultural group, while a gender is not. Tribalistic thinking latches onto these social-cultural groups, not just any old definition of a group.

So if the Dems want to turn up the heat in the identity politics war, white women will choose the white side rather than the feminist side. Especially if they see white men standing clearly on the white side, and it induces their conformist response.

The GOP's problem with women before was the moralistic natalist focus they had -- if you weren't married with children, there was something wrong with you.

Trump and his family clearly like making babies and raising children, but they don't moralize it into something being wrong with the woman if she isn't doing likewise. There must be some external social, economic, etc. conditions that need to be changed so that all women can do what they want to do, and be wives and mothers.

And that's to the extent that they focused on gender and kinship at all -- mostly it was about the economy and the government. Why can't an unmarried woman, a single mother, or a chick with tattoos get on board with his economic and governmental platforms?

We're going to have a strong rather than weak government, so they'll go pretty quickly.

In addition to ICE / Border Control, Trump can federalize the National Guard of all 50 states, not to mention the US Army, Marines, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard.

Two-bit gangs like MS-13 have only been spreading and enjoying success because of weak government. Once they face the possibility of the US Army, they will either flee fast or get wasted instantly. No more dicking around with El Jefe.

And if the gangs do put up a fight, citizens will appreciate Trump even more for ejecting such a violent foreign element from our own country.

Nobody will cry when the deportee is a spic who killed innocent people while driving drunk.

I also predict that the libs and progs, even the good ones, will react to this as though Trump = Hitler because he's protecting citizens who can't defend themselves from gangs, drunk driving Mexicans, Muslim terrorists, and the like.

Any strong use of the government = authoritarianism, in their minds.

So, they will turn themselves into caricatured anarchists in the minds of normal Americans. If you have to use the Army to root out MS-13 in the Southwest, then do it! Individuals cannot do it, local police departments can't do it, who the hell else is there besides the National Guard or the Army?

The more they call Trump and his supporters "fascists" for protecting defenseless citizens against organized violent foreigners, the more irrelevant they make themselves.

I'm hoping the good ones will at least be able to spin it as, "Well, I hate seeing displays of force like that, and we never want the President to have to mobilize the Army within our own borders... but then again, it's MS-13 we're talking about. I hate that they're there, forcing us to use the military, when we prefer never to have to use it."